1) mtgox found out that the bug is a bug that can´t be fixed. 2) core devs/earliest investors found out gox is right about the impossibility to fix it.3) bitcoin will blow completely4) core devs/early dudes have their stashes traditionally on gox and asked kindly if the could get out.5) MK (already rich) felt that he could do those guys (who made him so rich) a last favour: ok, you guys have one week to sell your coins on gox and withdraw the cash secretly, coming thursday i let everything blow. gox was anyway bankrupt, this way MK can blame the core devs... & they remain silent since they need the cash.

You miss one fundamental problem: For someone to deposit BTC onto gox and sell it, there has to be another guy on the other side of the trade that has fiat deposited to buy it.

Whichever way you slice it, is a zero sum game for customers, and gox just cream fees off everyone.

So the math is simply:

1. gox_fees - gox_overheads = gox_profit

whether gox_fees > gox_overheads is where the question lies. no theory (conspiracy or otherwise) needed.

gox_overheads have been inflated due to the confiscation, and potential loss of coins to malleability.but, gox_fees just keep on piling up.

its anybody's guess what the balance is.

Customer balances be it fiat or btc (should be) ring fenced if gox_fees < gox_overheads, then perhaps this isn't the case. To know that, you must know the answer to question 1 above.

http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto

In 2010 you know what he was doing? Massive M&A deals? Complex quant fund management? Billion dollar private equity deals and hostile takeovers? Doing website design and support. In 2010 he bought an trading card auction site (yes MtGox was originally going to handle trades between Magic the Gathering playing card owners) just as Bitcoin hit the uber-nerd scene and the rest is history.

Hey, just thought I should pull you up on this as the 'Mt Gox was a Magic the Gathering exchange'line gets bandied about a lot, but there is zero evidence that it ever was that (although the name likely does spring from it). Also when Karpeles bought Gox from Jed McCaleb, in *2011* (not 2010) it was already a Bitcoin exchange. The biggest Bitcoin exchange in fact, which it remained for ~2 years. So don't feed us crap about Karpeles buying a Magic exchange. He didn't.

I hate Gox and I think Karpeles is bumbling devious fuckwit, but there are enough damning FACTS about Gox that we can refrain from making up falsehoods.

Unlevereged financial instruments acting as a store of value that fluctuate 50% within 10 minutes is perfectly acceptable. I think it should be offered in IRA form to soon to be retirees.

Complex theory for sure, but with VC money there is no telling what could have really happened. Liquidity should never be an issue with a start-up, that's why they need VC money to survive the bumps.

Sure this is a very big bump, but I doubt they'll let anyone take real losses (meaning coins disappeared) because it would ruin the reputation of the VC firm backing them, as well as a huge loss of their initial investment.

Here's what I think happened, someone fucked up, whether it was the CEO or someone else, and they ran. Prompting the halt of all withdrawals, probably to prevent a "bank run" which would have emptied the value of the coins, as well as their coin cache.

Is Mtgox dead? Yes, in terms of a brand, they murdered our trust by withholding information.

I see so many people discussing theories instead of focusing on recovering their losses. This is a business and the inherent risk of loss never goes away.

You miss one fundamental problem: For someone to deposit BTC onto gox and sell it, there has to be another guy on the other side of the trade that has fiat deposited to buy it.

Whichever way you slice it, is a zero sum game for customers, and gox just cream fees off everyone.

Actually, my speculation is that Gox itself purchased coins, artificially crediting a cash number to a seller with plans to cover fiat withdrawals from their cash reserve if it came to that... though it often did not come to that since people withdraw coins more often than the burdensome fiat withdrawal process. I speculate that they did this to stimulate volatility - necessary for them to generate legitimate revenue. After enough time goes by, there is substantial Gox-backed fiat in user accounts - which originated solely from the earlier cash deposits Gox pulled commissions from (and gathered from pseudo-coin sales). Conversely, I speculated that Gox sold coins for the same reason, crediting investors btc balances with coin iou's. In their selling, they simply gather up and siphon off more of the original cash pool.

As Gox spends their cash reserves and fulfills withdrawals of promised coins, it is anything but a zero-sum game. This really is one of the foundations of my speculative conclusions.

They are a senior management team of a huge business. This is what executives do - this is their whole job. This is part and parcel for someone with an MBA in senior management role. They don't sit around with their feet on their desks (as much as we like to make them into cartoons that way). Ask a few entrepreneurs who grew large businesses and they will tell you that upper management lives and breathes financial strategy. They don't walk into a meeting with the Japanese Gov't and say "sup? we're screwed, what do we do?" They walk in with a business plan. That's what they do - and most senior executives are very bright - that's how they get to the top. It's not luck. They create effective strategies - it's the whole job.

They are a senior management team of a huge business. This is what executives do - this is their whole job. This is part and parcel for someone with an MBA in senior management role. They don't sit around with their feet on their desks (as much as we like to make them into cartoons that way). Ask a few entrepreneurs who grew large businesses and they will tell you that upper management lives and breathes financial strategy. They don't walk into a meeting with the Japanese Gov't and say "sup? we're screwed, what do we do?" They walk in with a business plan. That's what they do - and most senior executives are very bright - that's how they get to the top. It's not luck. They create effective strategies - it's the whole job.

Taking over Magic The Gathering exchange was just pure luck.

Taking over a lemonade stand and turning it into Tropicana in just a few years, however, is not just luck.

You have every right to hate this guy. Every right. But - he did something that I doubt most of us have the ability to pull off (or you'd be doing it right now and making millions on millions 2 years from now.. and most of us probably aren't halfway through building our multi-million dollar empire - that only takes us about 3 years to build up). And as it was stated earlier, he did it with no formal education - a testament to either the intelligence/experience of his team, or to his own intelligence and extraordinary luck. It's unlikely that it was any one of the three - it often is some combination thereof.

In his email interview with the Journal, Karpeles repeatedly said the company's solvency was confidential but that it had discussed its business model with Japanese authorities "to ensure that we are operating within the law here."

If that article is accurately quoting Mark Karpeles that's a very bizzarre thing for any CxO of a company to say. I'll certainly accept that it could be a slip of the tongue by a techie who's not really a businessman.... Or possibly even that your typical techie doesn't precisely understand exactly what the world "solvency" means. But still, it's difficult not to read things into that. Always assuming the source is reliable, of course (I know nothing about upi.com).

In the email interview with The Wall Street Journal, the French executive repeatedly responded to questions about the company’s solvency by saying that the matter is confidential. He did say, though, that the company had discussed its business model with Japanese authorities “to ensure that we are operating within the law here.”

I found this to be very bizarre -- more so than unnerving. I can understand why people view Karpeles as malicious. At best, he is so mind-bogglingly stupid that he doesn't understand the effect of refusing to deny accusations of insolvency. At worst, he is intentionally manipulating the market.

In the email interview with The Wall Street Journal, the French executive repeatedly responded to questions about the company’s solvency by saying that the matter is confidential. He did say, though, that the company had discussed its business model with Japanese authorities “to ensure that we are operating within the law here.”

I found this to be very bizarre -- more so than unnerving. I can understand why people view Karpeles as malicious. At best, he is so mind-bogglingly stupid that he doesn't understand the effect of refusing to deny accusations of insolvency. At worst, he is intentionally manipulating the market.

There are only three possibilities I can immediately see (please feel free to suggest any i'm missing):

1. He's been misquoted2. He misspoke (unlikely, given he apparently said this repeatedly) or he didn't understand the meaning of the word (possible).3. The company really is insolvent, and he knows it. And he is unwilling to issue a false statement to the contrary because he doesn't want to go to jail.

I have no idea which of the above is the case (or if I'm missing a fourth possibility).

Thanks ericmoulton for your entertaining post. True or not, at least you put some thought in it and made predictions, better than 90% of other threads here.

He wasn't unwilling to issue false statements in their message on the 10th.

In fact, he seems to deliberately wording his statements to maximally affect the market.Look at the way that he was blaming a bug in the bitcoin protocol. He knew ofcourse it wasn't quite true but that it would have a dramatic effect on the market, and he must have profited handsomely.

In fact, he seems to deliberately wording his statements to maximally affect the market.Look at the way that he was blaming a bug in the bitcoin protocol. He knew ofcourse it wasn't quite true but that it would have a dramatic effect on the market, and he must have profited handsomely.

im glad someone else noticed this as well. ineptitude of this magnitude is civilly/criminally liable. you either accept that they don't know any better (which would make you a fool to utilize their services after this) or they are doing it on purpose (which would make you a fool to utilize their services after this).

see what i did there?

op, good thought exercise. you've raised valid points to be considered by the community, and we appreciate you for it.

This sounds pretty close to what I believe their announcement today will be:

Quote

They'll say this: "We have thoroughly evaluated our withdrawal system and the malleability bug is no longer an issue. You can have confidence that Mt. Gox is as strong and secure as ever, and we thank you for your patience through this examination period. We are grateful to our partners, <blah blah blah>. We are happy to announce that trading, withdrawing, and depositing are fully functional once again and the market is open for trading. As a precaution, the withdrawal system will now implement temporary security measures including daily/weekly withdrawal limits and a queuing system, but once the system proves to be technically sound, these measures will be removed. To ensure the safety of our investors, we will be giving away $50 to all new accounts, but all new accounts will require contact details and a minimum initial deposit of $200. We are grateful <blah blah>. Happy trading!"

you end up waiting inside of that restaurant for 7 months and you still haven't got your food.

Most people can't live without food for more than a week. Your argument is invalid.

Wow, your density is in the super elite levels.

It's not an argument, it's a different way to look at exactly what is going on with mtgox. People have been waiting over 7 months (or more) for fiat withdrawals, do you really truly think that this restaurant scenario would happen? My goodness.